This is the talk page for User:Rhododendrites.
- 1 Sourced material need shouldn't be removed
- 2 Thanks!
- 3 My Judy Rifka addition to Fluxus.
- 4 List of cryptids
- 5 SPI case
- 6 You're good at Wikiquette
- 7 delsort script
- 8 Performance Licensing redirects
- 9 Nice work!
- 10 DYK for The American Review (literary journal)
- 11 right right. Sure, theres "templates for a reason"
- 12 You're welcome :-)
- 13 message moved from user page
- 14 Interference Archive
- 15 Ross William Ulbricht
- 16 Trapped In Static
- 17 Reverted edit on Imageboard article
- 18 A page you started (The History of Nordic Women's Literature) has been reviewed!
- 19 You accused me of edits I did not make
- 20 Edina, Minnesota
- 21 project management tool
- 22 DYK for Interference Archive
- 23 List of chess historians
- 24 Renee Bull
- 25 thanks
- 26 Removing file services is one thing, but could you kindly redo the formatting fixes?
- 27 Edina edit-a-thon
- 28 Declan Masterson.
Sourced material need shouldn't be removed
I'm going to revert the part about Jewish supremacism because it exists. It is both written about in the Bible, torah and many other texts. And have a lot to back it up. It's nothing less to vandalism to remove it.
- @Olehal09: - Hi. The reason I reverted your edit and left the message on your talk page actually has nothing to do with what you wrote, but that you're trying to force your additions via an edit war (repeatedly making the same or very similar changes when others undo them). That's never the right way to go and disrupts both the editing of the article and the process of collaboration. More practically, for your sake, it also attracts attention [of passerbys like me] who will revert because you're edit warring regardless of what it is you're edit warring about. Because Wikipedia operates by consensus, any challenged material needs to be discussed and justified on the talk page before being included (regardless of how true it is). A good model to follow is WP:BRD: make a Bold edit (add/remove substantial content), someone else might Revert it, and then it's time to Discuss on the talk page. You'll probably find you have more influence over the article content by going about it that way rather than simply reinserting the material. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You wrote clearly what I should have written (and what I thought that I had read). I don't understand how the people wanting to keep the article are invoking the organizational notability guideline (GNG?). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. WP:CORPDEPTH would normally apply to an organization like this, but given the centrality of criminal activity it renders that particular guideline moot. WP:GNG is the general notability guideline -- the rule of thumb that can be applied to any article. Most more specific notability criteria like CORPDEPTH are logical extensions of GNG. There's a list someone put together of frequently cited policies and guidelines in deletion debates here: Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. But yeah, it's a pretty cut and dry delete. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
My Judy Rifka addition to Fluxus.
I have lots of documentation of Judy Rifka as a contemporary fluxus artist. Just need time to gather the citations for documentation. I've added a footnote reference to a Huffington Post article since your deletion in the article on Fluxus. The placement of my initial addition to her wikilink Judy Rifka was especially appropriate when discussing fluxus in cyberspace. Sorry that I didn't realize that (undo) was the wrong way to approach the reversion to my original comment.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Mitzi.humphrey: Thanks for the message. The general rule for artists in art movement articles (or any specific example in an article about a larger subject) is that he/she should be presented in proportion to his or her role in the entire body of literature on the subject. So whereas a very high percentage of work on fluxus talks about George Maciunas, none of the work talks about me, and somewhere between there is just about everybody else :) If there are no sources about fluxus that talk about Rifka, it's highly unlikely it would be due weight to mention her beyond adding her to the list at the bottom. Maybe a sentence or two if many sources which aren't about fluxus nonetheless call her work fluxus or mention her in connection to it. It comes down to the fact that there's a whole lot out there about fluxus, so there's a higher bar than, say, something like metamodernism and somewhat lower than for abstract expressionism (again, based on the availability of sources on each). It's all very hard to measure, of course, and these standards, while part of Wikipedia policy, are not uniformly enforced. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododentrites: I'll try to work up a draft of documentation of Fluxus contributions by Judy and add them when I have more time. Thank you for your suggestions.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
List of cryptids
Hi Rhododendrites, you've recently reverted a spurious addition to this list by a known serial IP vandal - I've left a message on EncMstr's talk page as he is pretty good at promptly blocking the IP. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Bahudhara: Thanks for the heads up. What exactly is the user's MO? Is it connected to this SPI mentioned on EncMstr's page: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SpaceX33333? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- No, this IP user is not the same - his MO consists of constructing fake taxonomies for biological and palaeological topics (including some paranormal and non-living phenomena!). He has been intermittently active for more than 2 years, and never responds to messages on his talkpage. On occasions he has created new articles consisting of gibberish mixed with text copy-pasted from other articles. Due to these being quickly deleted, he has changed his MO to creating article talk pages, rather than actual articles. The IP addresses he uses are scattered over an area of north-eastern Pennsylvania. Occasionally he uses what may be his own name - Edward Ostroski. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You can check here for the SPI case I have opened after evaluating comments from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitesh Estates Limited]]: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kratipaw34 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethically Yours (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 January 2015
- @Ethically yours: Thanks. Indeed is an issue. I commented at the SPI but unfortunately this week I won't have any blocks of time big enough to contribute much to it. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You're good at Wikiquette
Your patience and calm do you well, per AGF. I was impressed by the way you went beyond explaining what you were doing (deleting contentious unsourced material) to give the user you reverted instructions on how they, too, may do so constructively. That technique may not always work, but it seems like a great way to start making a good editor out of a POV newbie who, after all, has demonstrated interest in editing Wikipedia one way or another. Cheers! FourViolas (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- @FourViolas: Thanks. :) Better to waste time than to lose a potentially productive editor. Based on emails I received, I think we can conclude it was not fruitful in this case, though. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- @War wizard90: Great! Can I ask what's different about yours? (I'm editing on a mobile device presently, which makes extensive hunting/comparison challenging) :) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I just had the standard script installed which only has basic categories for sorting, and they weren't organized in any particular manner. I noticed you were sorting more complex categories using delsort, and saw you had a custom script and tried it, this version is much more useful for sorting AfD's. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Performance Licensing redirects
- @Smallgwg: Great. If you have questions about this in the future feel free to ask, of course. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
|You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.|
Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
DYK for The American Review (literary journal)
|On 24 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The American Review (literary journal), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after The American Review 's owner expressed admiration for Hitler and Mussolini, a former contributor said he wouldn't write for it again "if it were the last publication left in America"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The American Review (literary journal). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
right right. Sure, theres "templates for a reason"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music Why is it here at Heavy Metal are either of you not changing this. It looks Dramatically better and is ACCURATE. If you want more details, the Main Article is hardcore punk. The word main article in the see more section isn't helping. Heavy Metal is more popular. I also have ( a few) 100,000 (hundred thousand) units behind me in Hardcore Punk. I am an expert on the genre for sure, Furthermore Heavy Metal is More Popular why not change those to fit your "templates" . Is it such a big deal tp try and flex "editor" muscle. What are you actually Improving with a less professional way of wording things 2601:C:2081:2B30:E166:8F28:8B75:2ABF (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Its an underground semi-above ground genre anytime we get something to present it in a much more uniform professional manor, many times someone who probably hasn't much experience with it meddles and makes it look amateur. Thanks for that. Well done. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)What in the world does any of this have to do with changing a template to "for more information"? If you want something changed on Wikipedia, ranting about being an expert, edit warring, and demanding your way is more accurate will get you nowhere. That's just the kind of site this is. Edit warring in particular will immediately make the benefit of the doubt go to whatever position you're not supporting (the assumption is that whoever is right can convince people they're right on the talk page and not resort to edit warring). In this case, however, it's an easy one because it's a basic stylistic thing. We have templates for a reason, as I said. If you don't like the template, take it up at Template talk:Main or WT:MOS. Otherwise it's a basic matter of wanting consistency of style across the site. There are other similar templates like Template:See also (and others linked from there), but use one of them. Templates also allow people to run various reports about template use to come up with, say, a list of article sections which contain a summary of another article (something use of the Main template would allow for that some text would not). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome :-)
I received a "thank you" message from you for just a little edit in Hate speech. I appreciate that very much since I'm not a native english speaker, and I was a bit insecure if my edit is correct at all. That's why I want to thank you for your "thank you" :-). --J.Ammon (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @J.Ammon: It was indeed correct. Thanks for improving the wiki (and for the thanks-thanks :) ). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
message moved from user page
Hey man, I was just adding the example of how the German, a nonlatinate language, uses Bibliothek as its word for library, and this guy keeps editing back to just the French version. It is expected that French has pretty much the exact Latin word for library, but less expected that German does. So I'm going to edit it back because my contribution enriches the page, while the other guy keeps removing that enrichment without warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Minty Penguin (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 January 2015
- @Epicgenius: Fine with me, but thanks for the notice/offer. I'm trying to procure images, so was waiting on that to self-nominate, but it's unclear if they're coming and I don't know that I would've gotten around to it within the deadline so it's probably best you did so. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Ross William Ulbricht
If Ulbricht is convicted of the crime, I'm assuming that would dispel your WP:CRIME objections to an article about him. His is a fascinating case, and he is an interesting person very much in the public eye. I for one would search Wikipedia for information about him. BTW, are you an administrator? Chisme (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Chisme: Certainly if he were convicted, WP:BLPCRIME would not apply (I think that's the link you mean). WP:CRIME, which relates to notability rather than BLP policy, would still be an issue to be considered since it starts with A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Since the Silk Road article is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to Dread Pirate Roberts, that would seem to mean it should go there. But notability really was a distant secondary concern when I redirected those two articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, and no, I'm not an administrator. By the way, I started a thread over at the BLPN on the subject, if you would like to weigh in: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Trapped In Static
Hi there, thank you for reaching out. I am just a fan of the band and specifically Athan Hilaki since he was with GAD. There are plenty of articles online that show the bands history as well as the musician itself, articles from established websites, which you can locate in the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outliner (talk • contribs) 02:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Outliner: Hi. I think we have three parallel threads going now. :) To condense, I think this is best taken over to the deletion discussion. Check out the notability criteria for bands to ensure it does indeed meet that criteria (most bands don't), gather all the articles/links you can find (the reliable ones), and include them with an argument for it being kept at the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapped In Static. I do always look myself before nominating and couldn't find enough sources to support it, but I could certainly be wrong. Since it looks like they have roots in Greece it made me wonder if some were available in Greek that I wouldn't be seeing by searching in English. But yes, do add them to the deletion discussion. Remember, too, to finish every talk page post you write with four tildes (like ~~~~). Doing so will sign your post. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Hi. I have added some links on that article from well established websites, I hope these work. Thank you.
Reverted edit on Imageboard article
Care to inform me which of the many parts of ELNO you thought my recent edit of the Imageboard article violated? Aren't links to imageboard software projects relevant in an article about imageboards? In case they aren't, should the links to the other projects (CamelBoard, etc.) in the table I edited (or the entire table) also be removed? Or is there something specific to the Danbooru project that makes it unsuitable for linking?
I'm not an "established user", but I'm trying to help. Getting edits that aren't obvious vandalism or spam reverted without meaningful explanation does not make it easier to learn.
- @OnceAndFutureFlopsy: Typically a link to the website of an individual non-notable (i.e. doesn't have a Wikipedia article of its own) example of the article subject falls under WP:ELNO #1, #13, #14, and/or #19. So the standard answer would be no, a link to an imageboard software project is not appropriate for an article about imageboards because Wikipedia is not a software directory and includes only the most significant examples, defined the vast majority of the time by those examples which have articles themselves. That said, I didn't notice when I reverted that you were adding a link to a long list of links. The list shouldn't be there, in my opinion, but it's possible a local consensus emerged with a compelling reason to keep them and if I'm not prepared to address the whole list on the talk page, I have no reason to remove one single link. So I've restored it. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I used Wikipedia for several years before I registered, and I've come to understand that, in general, "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages". However, I've also gotten used to seeing extensive "Comparison of products in category X" articles. (Among many others, there are "Comparison of web server software", "Comparison of dental practice management software" and "Comparison of wiki hosting services".) Many editors must have thought that the convenience of product comparison articles trumped their (arguably) unencyclopedic nature. That's why I didn't question the legitimacy of the table I edited.
- Anyway, thanks for your explanation. If you and other people who know things eventually decide that the table or the project links in Imageboard are inappropriate, then I won't dispute that. OnceAndFutureFlopsy (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Totally understandable. Software articles in general are a really shoddy area of Wikipedia. It's where you're more likely to find lists of external links or even, as was the case for me recently, coming across articles for some niche software that have somehow existed for 7 years as no more than a copy/paste of features from the developer's website. The horror. Those lists you pointed to don't look like they're in bad shape as others (List of unit testing frameworks was recently pointed out to me as an example of an abomination in its present state). These two just look like they haven't been checked up recently by those who care to remove the entries without wikipedia articles about them (and the primary sources). Anyway, Comparison of web server software no longer contains the redlinks. :) --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A page you started (The History of Nordic Women's Literature) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating The History of Nordic Women's Literature, Rhododendrites!
Wikipedia editor WordSeventeen just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Excellent article. Well done. Thanks
To reply, leave a comment on WordSeventeen's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
You accused me of edits I did not make
I don't know how this happened, but I did not make these edits.
- @22.214.171.124: The edit I undid is the one visible here. It's possible you did not make the edit, but the IP is the same one you used to leave this message. I only left one of those messages, though; three other people noticed the vandalism coming from the IP you're using, ultimately resulting in a block. If you feel it was an error, see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, you are wrong - it is NOT possible that I made the edit. Because I don't do that sort of thing. Simple as that. And I resent being accused like this. As I said, I don't know how my IP address was used, and nobody else in this family even knows about editing Wikipedia. Maybe the IP address was spoofed. The fact is these accusations made by you and three other people came out of the blue and are rather disturbing. There's a sense of being presumed guilty before being proved otherwise, and it makes me feel uncomfortable.
It is a pity that, when suspicion is aroused, the accusers don't insert a paragraph with polite suggestions as to how it might have happened - maybe a visitor to the house (highly unlikely in this case), or maybe one's router gets a reboot to an IP address that has been used by a Wikipedia vandal, thereby "inheriting" a notice such as that I received.
.... by the way, I think my IP address changed becasue of a router reboot, hence my thought about one reason that an action is misattributed. (Sorry about not signing that first post - I get the tildes now) 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- All of this is possible. If someone doesn't register for a username, IP is all we have to go on. But there's a reason why, for example, when we block an IP it's never permanent -- because someone else could eventually have that IP. We don't give reasons why it could've happened because it's extremely rare that two have the same IP in the same time frame and both edit Wikipedia, one of them problematically, unless at a shared computer like at a school. Regardless, there's an easy fix: register an account. Then there's no confusion. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Juno: No problem. I don't disagree with your decision to remove them when they were originally added. They were, especially given the edit warring and now knowing the COI, problematic. I spent a good amount of time researching and reworking the section, so while the fact of the class assignment is concerning, I hope you'll agree the article as it is is reasonably solid. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
project management tool
Thanks for alerting me, sorry, it wasn't clear. So I either have to be a notable entity or write an article to add my system to the list? How does one become notable?188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your help
- Hi there. Well, I feel like I should first point you to WP:COI. It's usually ill-advised to write an article about something you're connected to, but there's no explicit rule against it. But to answer your question more directly, "notability" is Wikipedia's quasi-objective measure of importance based entirely on the amount of coverage something has received in reliable sources. There's the general notability guideline which applies to almost everything but then there's also a specialized criteria for software, WP:NSOFT. The reliable sources part is what's ambiguous for some people, so I'd check out that page first to get the gist. I hope that helps. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Interference Archive
|On 14 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Interference Archive, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an April 2013 exhibit in the Interference Archive featured homemade cardboard shields that were confiscated by the New York Police Department as weapons? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Interference Archive. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
List of chess historians
I think you were right to propose List of chess historians for deletion. The topic might be worthy of an article, but this article isn't it. The page hasn't improved over time, and no one seems interested or willing to fix it, so keeping the page as it is is not helpful. I think I will write a new section in prose in History of chess and redirect the list page to it as I suggested at WT:CHESS#Proposed deletion of list of chess historians. I'm busy with coursework right now, but I'll put it on my list. Quale (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Quale: Yes, the article as it is has serious problems. I stand by the PROD, but wasn't really thinking when I AfDed as it's just not the kind of problem AfD fixes (sources exist to establish notability, WP:TNT is a hard case to make, and it's not the right place to suggest redirect/merge). So yes, dealt with at the article level is better. I think a section at history of chess sounds like a great idea. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I have used a number of reliable sources to significantly expand and improve the Renee Bull article. I respectfully request that you review the article in its current state and reconsider your !vote in the current discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 03:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done I did take another look. The Promote Peace Now articles are good since they add another angle, but I don't agree that these demonstrate notability. So I've changed my !vote from delete to weak delete. It's looking like it's going to be kept, so regardless of my opinion, nice job [potentially] rescuing an article. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thanks I had messed up the reference somehow,
- @Matibenbaruch: Hello. Yes that references looked like an error. However, the other changes that you made under the "typos" edit summary are not typos, which suggests a mistake in typing. Any .onion address, if we give one at all, needs to be accompanied by a reliable source. Deepdotweb really stretches that concept, but it isn't quite bad enough to remove it. The Tor article is actually at Tor (anonymity network). Tor (anonymous network) redirects. Not a big deal there, but better to point at the real target if we're going to display something different (just "Tor") anyway. I think it's great you're translating it int French, btw. Good luck with the translation! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Removing file services is one thing, but could you kindly redo the formatting fixes?
Undoing revisions should be done just as carefully as adding information. If you are just going to slash and burn, perhaps you should leave the work to people who care enough to IMPROVE the article. All the corrections and improvements I made to the article were also wiped out and you didn't take responsibility to keep the improvements. Please correct your mistakes.
- I think I see what you're referring to. You are correct that I removed more than I intended. I'm on my phone at the moment but would be happy to readd the information when I'm at my computer tonight or tomorrow. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- @LiL-BuZZard: Now that I take a closer look, I don't see what you're talking about at all. I presume we're talking about Comparison of file hosting services. My only two reverts are: here, in which I remove only the "Other Services without a stand alone entry" section, and here in which I reverted edits in which you added an entry that doesn't have an article and removed the formatting for a single cell of another entry. What were the improvements you made that you're saying I removed? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
|In the area? You're invited to the|
|Date: Sunday, March 1, 2015|
|Time: 2 to 5 PM|
| Place: Ethel Berry Room
7001 York Avenue South
- Thanks. Unfortunately I'm about a thousand miles away or I'd be there. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I fully understand why you reverted my recent inclusion of 'red-inked' Declan Masterson in the article on bagpipers and, in a way, I don't like red-ink either.
The reason for including it that way was twofold: 1) make the article on pipers more complete and 2) encourage other editors to consider taking the initiative of creating the subject article, especially if they have access to more data than I do.
So, instead of the 'red-ink' entry approach, I could add a section on the article's talk page, to ask if other editors consider Declan Masterson notable enough to warrant an article. If consensus turns out negative, then this would be another reason for not creating one in the first pace: no point doing all the work if such an article is going to be tagged for speedy deletion for falling foul of the notability requirement.
- @Pdebee: Thanks for the message. The two reasons you give are historically why redlinks are created, but in particular why they're created within articles. Words/terms/phrases/names in an article are based on reliable sources so there's nothing like "notability" for their inclusion and thus to turn them into links. With lists, however, each item has to independently merit inclusion so the standard for most is for each to have a Wikipedia article. Sometimes there are lists that can be exhaustive like a discography, list of provinces of Canada, list of mountains in Africa, list of elements, etc. but otherwise each should be notable. Adding it to the talk page may work, but I don't know if list of bagpipers gets enough traffic such that I would expect much of a response to such a question there.
- What I would recommend would be to create Draft:Declan Masterson. The draft namespace is where you can develop an article before moving it to the main article space. You might also want to check out Articles for Creation, a process whereby you can submit a Draft to a group of experienced editors who can provide feedback. I'd also be happy to take a look. There's no requirement you do any of this -- you can always just create the article, but creating a Draft is a good way to avoid a quick deletion in case you make a mistake. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Dear Rhododendrites;
Thank you very much for your prompt reply, and for taking the time to make it so informative too; I have learnt a lot, thanks to your cogent explanations, and I really appreciate it. The few articles I have created so far were mostly of albums from notable musicians, so these were almost no-brainers () to develop by first drafting them in one of my sandboxes ear-marked for that very purpose, and proved very enjoyable to do.
- However, you have guided me in a most helpful way to try and take a different approach and I'll certainly look again at Articles for Creation and proceed via the draft process, as you so kindly suggested.
Very many thanks once more for your most helpful assistance so far; I will contact you again once I've made some progress with drafting the Masterson article, which I will definitely initiate now, simply for the benefit of learning by applying your recommended approach.
With kind regards for now;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 15:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: Dear Rhododendrites;